ArticleClinical & experimental optometry2026
Utility of optometrist referrals for glaucoma evaluation in a young adult population.
Article in Clinical & experimental optometry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
clinical relevanceFew studies have examined the utility of glaucoma referrals among young adults aged 18-40 years, as glaucoma is primarily a disease of the elderly. There are sparse data about prevalence of myopia, which may confound glaucoma diagnosis in this population.
backgroundTo examine the prevalence and characteristics of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) patients and suspects among young adults aged 18-39 years referred by optometry for in-office evaluation by glaucoma specialists.
methodsEligible participants who were referred for glaucoma evaluation between 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2019 were identified in the electronic medical record database. Study inclusion required glaucoma suspect diagnosis by optometry with subsequent referral and evaluation by a fellowship-trained glaucoma specialist. Diagnoses of glaucoma suspect and POAG by the glaucoma specialists were ascertained through International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision codes and confirmed through manual chart review. Electronic medical record data were reviewed for age at time of referral, sex, cup-to-disc ratio, intraocular pressure (IOP), central corneal thickness, spherical equivalent refractive error, and family history of glaucoma. Ocular data from one eye of each included patient was selected at random and compared between glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients.
resultsAmong 660 patients referred by optometrists for glaucoma evaluation, 151 (22.9%) followed up with referrals. Among evaluated patients, 6 (4.0%) were diagnosed with glaucoma. Glaucoma patients tended to have more severe myopia and higher cup-to-disc ratio compared to glaucoma suspects.
conclusionThe utility of referring young adults for glaucoma evaluation was low in this patient population and practice setting, with only one out of 25 evaluations yielding a positive diagnosis and over 75% of referred patients failing to present for evaluation. Evidence-based methods to risk-stratify patients and establish standardised referral guidelines could be beneficial to ensure proper allocation of glaucoma care resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.